ILNews

Ministers not protected under labor act

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court's decision to toss out a case because the plaintiffs were not entitled to minimum wage and overtime under the "ministerial exception," although the Circuit Court modified the reason for dismissing the case.

In Steve and Lorrie Schleicher v. The Salvation Army, No. 07-1333, the Schleichers appealed the decision of U.S. District Judge Richard Young of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction. The Schleichers, ordained ministers of The Salvation Army, brought a suit against The Salvation Army, charging violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Schleichers were administrators of The Salvation Army's Adult Rehabilitation Center in Indianapolis. The job did not pay wages, but they received a stipend of $150 a week. The Rehabilitation Center operated a total of five thrift shops, and most of the thrift shop employees were people down on their luck that The Salvation Army was attempting to redeem.

The couple was later expelled from The Salvation Army for filing the suit.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Young's decision to dismiss the case, although the case should have been dismissed because of lack of merits in the plaintiff's claims, wrote Judge Richard Posner.

The Schleichers were not employed by the thrift shops they worked at, nor is the Rehabilitation Center an ordinary business enterprise that would be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Rehabilitation Center is a church, administered by church officials.

The question the Circuit Court had to decide was whether the fact that a church has a commercial dimension brings its ministers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

It does not, using the Schleichers case as an example, wrote Judge Posner, because the ministers who run the Rehabilitation Center don't wait on customers or manage the day-to-day operations, but instead they manage the religious complex that includes the thrift shops.

Comparing the Schleichers' thrift shops to a Catholic cathedral that runs a gift shop, Judge Posner wrote that the employees of the thrift shop would be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, but the bishop who administers the cathedral is not.

"The Salvation Army's Adult Rehabilitation Centers are functional equivalents of cathedrals or monasteries, and the ministers who administer them are therefore engaged in ecclesiastical administration," he wrote.

The best way to decide the case is to presume clerical personnel are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which can be rebutted by proof a church is fake or the title of "minister" is not appropriately bestowed upon an employee.

The Schleichers are properly ordained ministers in a completely legitimate church, so they are not subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Posner wrote that although Judge Young was correct in dismissing the case, the judge dismissed the case for the wrong reason, creating a harmless error. Judge Young dismissed the case under a rule that allowed the court to toss cases that are not within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The case should have been dismissed because of its merits - that the court would not rule in an ecclesiastical controversy, Judge Posner wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT